Obama’s waterboy, Chuck Schumer, is deciding that enough is enough and going against Obama’s tax plan. 250K in NYC isn’t anywhere near rich, or in any other large urban area.
The idea Schumer had to have a graduated scale based on geography is also divisive nonsense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583090732336436.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The idea Schumer had to have a graduated scale based on geography is also divisive nonsense.
Rather than a person in a “High income” area paying more why don’t we reverse taxes so people pay based on “What they own”?
Let’s look at it this way. Our military exists for the sole purpose of protecting our society. The “More we own” the more it will cost to protect those assets. This is roughly the same system as insurance.
So while a person in the Midwest making 250K may own a 500K home a person in NY making 250K may own a 1.5M dollar home.
Seems to me the guy in NY should be paying more because it’s going to cost more to protect and replace his property if it get’s bombed.
So rather than a graduated scale on geography, why not a graduated scale based on choices and lifestyle loosely based on property value?
Another option here is to eliminate the income tax all together and institute a national sales tax of some sort assuming that every dollar spent will cost “X” to protect and service with government services.
~Matt
Old Chuck is always good for a laugh.
Another option here is to eliminate the income tax all together and institute a national sales tax of some sort assuming that every dollar spent will cost “X” to protect and service with government services.
~Matt
I used to be a big proponent of this (a consumption based tax) and I still am in theory. However, the reality of our political system is that pushing for a consumption based tax would result in us having an income AND consumption tax.
Despite it’s reputation as a high tax state which isn’t really accurate anymore, that’s how Massachusetts works things in part.
You pay excise taxes on vehicles owned (cars, boats, etc.) based on their value. It makes sense to me.
Despite it’s reputation as a high tax state which isn’t really accurate anymore, that’s how Massachusetts works things in part.
You pay excise taxes on vehicles owned (cars, boats, etc.) based on their value. It makes sense to me.
Unless you pull a Kerry.
http://www.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1269698
However, the reality of our political system is that pushing for a consumption based tax would result in us having an income AND consumption tax.
I don’t really expect things to change and while heartedly agree the end result of any “New tax” would be both taxes.
I’m just thinking “In theory” and why it makes more sense to me than an “Income tax”.
~Matt
You pay excise taxes on vehicles owned (cars, boats, etc.) based on their value. It makes sense to me.
Yes I’m not sure how you’d work the exact mechanics of it. Not sure that “Wealth” would be the way to go as “Protecting” 10 million in cash costs much less than a 10 million dollar home.
That being said the “Idea” makes sense in that the tax dollars you owe would be owed based on something closer to your actual consumption of services than would income alone.
~Matt
Yah, but the opportunities for loopholes on a “wealth” tax are endless as you have to determine both values and ownership.
You’d have crazy depreciation tactics, bizarre trusts to dilute ownership, downright evasion by hiding assets, etc.
Plus, do you really want the gov to have a complete inventory of everything valuable that you own?
Despite it’s reputation as a high tax state which isn’t really accurate anymore, that’s how Massachusetts works things in part.
You pay excise taxes on vehicles owned (cars, boats, etc.) based on their value. It makes sense to me.
Unless you pull a Kerry.
http://www.bostonherald.com/...bg?articleid=1269698]
Let’s see: he pays $7,000,000 for a yacht, has a net worth (including his wife) of anywhere between $150,000,000 and $1,000,000,000, and he risks political heat over half a million in sales tax and $40,000/year in excise tax. Sounds like the right assumption to make about his motives.
Or you could just acknowledge that living in NYC is more expensive than other placesbecause more people want to live here (I’m not saying they’re right to want to but pointing out it’s just supply and demand). Every attempt to compensate New Yorkers for the privilege of living in a desirable area is basically a subsidy.
I’m saying this as a New Yorker but COLA scales are ridiculous - if you can’t afford to live here then move.
The idea Schumer had to have a graduated scale based on geography is also divisive nonsense.
Rather than a person in a “High income” area paying more why don’t we reverse taxes so people pay based on “What they own”?
Let’s look at it this way. Our military exists for the sole purpose of protecting our society. The “More we own” the more it will cost to protect those assets. This is roughly the same system as insurance.
So while a person in the Midwest making 250K may own a 500K home a person in NY making 250K may own a 1.5M dollar home.
Seems to me the guy in NY should be paying more because it’s going to cost more to protect and replace his property if it get’s bombed.
So rather than a graduated scale on geography, why not a graduated scale based on choices and lifestyle loosely based on property value?
**Another option here is to eliminate the income tax all together and institute a national sales tax of some sort assuming that every dollar spent will cost “X” to protect and service with government services. **
~Matt
I have been saying this for years. The great thing about putting a national sales tax in place of the income tax is with a sales tax you get all the illegal money. Drug dealers, hookers, etc all spend money but none of it shoes up on a W2 thus they don’t pay anything to Uncle Sam. If we went to a sales tax all of a sudden Uncle Same is getting some of that illegal money and overall rates could go down.